News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke by read_if_gay_ on Tuesday September 15, 2020 @02:04PM (#24484461)
That point about cost effectiveness is what always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when donating. I didn't realize people put lists of recommendations together, that's nice to see.

But how would you go about verifying any stated claims?

Re:Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke by FeepingCreature on Tuesday September 15, 2020 @02:32PM (#24484913)
Givewell's process is detailed at https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process

It's very plausible to disagree with some of their choices. For instance, you might be interested in efficient charitable giving within your country, and bite the bullet of "this means I value starving africans a lot less." The important part is to prompt charities to document costs and outcomes in general (preferably to a scientific standard), so that people can make more informed choices about their donations no matter their values.

Re:Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke by brundolf on Tuesday September 15, 2020 @02:30PM (#24484884)
This site ranks charities based on their finances, with breakdowns on different axes: https://www.charitynavigator.org/
Re:Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke by yboris on Tuesday September 15, 2020 @03:19PM (#24485553)
Overhead is a bad thing to look at: http://overheadmyth.com/

If an organization cures blindness for $20 through cataract surgeries in developing nations, and another spends $40,000 to train a seeing eye dog for a single individual, we are looking at ratios of 1:1000 in terms of effectiveness. The amount spent on 'overhead' is irrelevant!